Not trying to start a flare up, but honestly, you don't "got it". You seem to be looking for a fool proof, 100% accurate all the time working system. You may deny this, but think about it. Every time you point out a system that doesn't work, you should remind yourself that systems aren't 100% accurate, ore even close. And this revelation would stop you from going one step further in your investigation.

In other words, If someone is aware that no system works 100% of the time, or even 80% of the time, why would they waste their time pointing out the inferior parts of the system? The inferior parts obviously make up the 20%, so it should be expected? No?

It's like saying this over and over again ...."I'm confident this parachute will open up on my way down, but there have been cases where people pulled the tab and the chute didn't open".

There's nothing wrong with being inquisitive, never stop asking questions, just try to ask more relevant questions, not the obvious..

Amber-My questioning is looking at whether a system is any better at predicting numbers than just randomly picking numbers, so I'm definitely not looking to hold a system to 100% accuracy.

Like this: If a system produces 1 suggested straight play per draw. I would look for whether the suggested play hits any better than one would expect from any random combo. The random combo we would expect to hit .1% of the time. So in that example I would be looking for it to work better than .1%, not 100%. If it did, then there'd be something to go with there. If not, might as well just pick a random combo to play. The numbers change based on the number of plays/combos/pairs being suggested by a system, but the idea is the same; does it give better suggestions than picking random numbers would? That would be the idea of gaining some advantage.

Not trying to start a flare up, but honestly, you don't "got it". You seem to be looking for a fool proof, 100% accurate all the time working system. You may deny this, but think about it. Every time you point out a system that doesn't work, you should remind yourself that systems aren't 100% accurate, ore even close. And this revelation would stop you from going one step further in your investigation.

In other words, If someone is aware that no system works 100% of the time, or even 80% of the time, why would they waste their time pointing out the inferior parts of the system? The inferior parts obviously make up the 20%, so it should be expected? No?

It's like saying this over and over again ...."I'm confident this parachute will open up on my way down, but there have been cases where people pulled the tab and the chute didn't open".

There's nothing wrong with being inquisitive, never stop asking questions, just try to ask more relevant questions, not the obvious..

Amber-One more thing. I am actually hoping to find that with the analysis, a system works. If we are going to find what works, we need creative people to come up with ideas and throw them out there. We also need people who are good at evaluating whether the ideas work or not. Some people might be good at both things idk.

You seem pretty creative at coming up with ideas. Now, if something you come up with turns out not to have any merit, would you rather people keep quiet about that and you keep spending time and money going down a path that you shouldn't, or have someone explain to you how or why it isn't working so you can move on or modify the plan as necessary?

Amber-My questioning is looking at whether a system is any better at predicting numbers than just randomly picking numbers, so I'm definitely not looking to hold a system to 100% accuracy.

Like this: If a system produces 1 suggested straight play per draw. I would look for whether the suggested play hits any better than one would expect from any random combo. The random combo we would expect to hit .1% of the time. So in that example I would be looking for it to work better than .1%, not 100%. If it did, then there'd be something to go with there. If not, might as well just pick a random combo to play. The numbers change based on the number of plays/combos/pairs being suggested by a system, but the idea is the same; does it give better suggestions than picking random numbers would? That would be the idea of gaining some advantage.

You really amaze me, and I'm not being facetious.

You eloquently explained the problems involved with random in your second paragraph. You filled a lot of the holes. And....... You answered your own question.

In your first paragraph you tell me what you're looking for, and my response was "nothing is 100% predictable" (paraphrasing).... Doesn't That response trigger further confirmation that the 20% doesn't work? And that's how you account for the 80% success rate?

again none of my system are 100%....play what u can afford....i personally stick with singles only...some people plays doubles and singles..and when i do play singles, these are my favorite pairs....my everyday pairs at that...my everyday keys are 0123....its all process of reducing at this point...playing 10-15 combos a day online...or spending 10-15.00 to make 150.00..ill take those box odds all day. but that's just me

Amber-One more thing. I am actually hoping to find that with the analysis, a system works. If we are going to find what works, we need creative people to come up with ideas and throw them out there. We also need people who are good at evaluating whether the ideas work or not. Some people might be good at both things idk.

You seem pretty creative at coming up with ideas. Now, if something you come up with turns out not to have any merit, would you rather people keep quiet about that and you keep spending time and money going down a path that you shouldn't, or have someone explain to you how or why it isn't working so you can move on or modify the plan as necessary?

I agree, let's focus on the silent majority to speak out and get something started soon. Lots of talented individuals who are sealing their lips.

I agree with the statement about other pairs. That's why I believe so much in repeating pairs. But I won't go there for now.

In the example you state about other pairs appearing with the budget pair, I observed that there was instances that the other pair did not show again in that 40 draw period. One of the pairs did, in fact it seemed to be in repeating mode. It showed more times than the budget pair. In the previous 40 draw period, it also appeared multiple times. However in the next 40 draw period it did not. The budget pair it was with....3 times in each of those 40 draw periods. So which is more consistent?

So what has this endless babble about nothing accomplished? Nothing. Pages and pages of talk about something that could occur and assigning percentages to a game that is win or lose and the only percentage is 100% ,that is reality.

So what has this endless babble about nothing accomplished? Nothing. Pages and pages of talk about something that could occur and assigning percentages to a game that is win or lose and the only percentage is 100% ,that is reality.

Agreed. The only important page was the first one. Many good examples, explanations of reduction, and uses of indicators.

Amber-My questioning is looking at whether a system is any better at predicting numbers than just randomly picking numbers, so I'm definitely not looking to hold a system to 100% accuracy.

Like this: If a system produces 1 suggested straight play per draw. I would look for whether the suggested play hits any better than one would expect from any random combo. The random combo we would expect to hit .1% of the time. So in that example I would be looking for it to work better than .1%, not 100%. If it did, then there'd be something to go with there. If not, might as well just pick a random combo to play. The numbers change based on the number of plays/combos/pairs being suggested by a system, but the idea is the same; does it give better suggestions than picking random numbers would? That would be the idea of gaining some advantage.

Of course a system is better at better at predicting numbers than randomly picking them. Random is quick picks, if it hits it's all luck. A system is working with a plan to pick your numbers.

You follow football? You a Packers fan? Here's two game situations.

1) The Packers have the ball with 10 seconds left in the game. It's 4th down, on the 40 yard line. They need a touchdown to win. They're in the huddle. Aaron Rogers calls a play that they always use in that situation. They get the touchdown and win the game. That is a system.

2) Same situation. They're in the huddle. Aaron Rogers says to his receivers. "You guys go wherever the hell you want and I'll chuck the ball." The play starts. He doesn't know where to throw the ball, because the receivers are running around all over the place. He has no idea where the receivers are going. He gets sacked and they lose the game. That is randomly picking numbers.

Of course a system is better at better at predicting numbers than randomly picking them. Random is quick picks, if it hits it's all luck. A system is working with a plan to pick your numbers.

You follow football? You a Packers fan? Here's two game situations.

1) The Packers have the ball with 10 seconds left in the game. It's 4th down, on the 40 yard line. They need a touchdown to win. They're in the huddle. Aaron Rogers calls a play that they always use in that situation. They get the touchdown and win the game. That is a system.

2) Same situation. They're in the huddle. Aaron Rogers says to his receivers. "You guys go wherever the hell you want and I'll chuck the ball." The play starts. He doesn't know where to throw the ball, because the receivers are running around all over the place. He has no idea where the receivers are going. He gets sacked and they lose the game. That is randomly picking numbers.

With standard state payouts, if I bet totally randomly, I should expect to get 50% of my money back in winnings. (I'm playing on paper and on the prediction board only, btw)

With my first attempt at creating a system, I found that I I was following a pattern that constantly paid back far less than random, maybe 20 % or so. Now, that was very interesting, it suggests something non-random may actually be going on! Just "flip" around the idea, and do the opposite, right?

Much Better, I started winning, I had stumbled on a pattern that was working (at least for a while) in my state. But I was relying on luck/intuition to bring the number of lines down to a reasonable number.

Then, in attempting to tighten the picks and maybe due to a shift in the pattern, I started losing, every single time. I thought I was close, because I got two of three right far more than the odds suggest I should have, but never all three. Still encouraging, in the sense that results still looked to be non-random.

So, time to start phase 3, and that's where I am now.

So, just a long-winded way to say that a bad plan or system can be worse than random, or no plan.

Of course a system is better at better at predicting numbers than randomly picking them. Random is quick picks, if it hits it's all luck. A system is working with a plan to pick your numbers.

You follow football? You a Packers fan? Here's two game situations.

1) The Packers have the ball with 10 seconds left in the game. It's 4th down, on the 40 yard line. They need a touchdown to win. They're in the huddle. Aaron Rogers calls a play that they always use in that situation. They get the touchdown and win the game. That is a system.

2) Same situation. They're in the huddle. Aaron Rogers says to his receivers. "You guys go wherever the hell you want and I'll chuck the ball." The play starts. He doesn't know where to throw the ball, because the receivers are running around all over the place. He has no idea where the receivers are going. He gets sacked and they lose the game. That is randomly picking numbers.

That's an excellent example of what a system should do. I don't think, however, that the Green Bay Packers would send their playbook to their rival the Chicago Bears so that they could give them feedback as to whether it worked or not (you know maybe tweak it a little bit) to see if it worked in their State.

Sometimes it's extremely difficult if not practically impossible to get people to disregard the smoke and mirrors. Instead, they seem to enjoy the ride down the proverbial Garden Path....... helpless to extricate themselves from being totally deceived by known forces in their midst who would argue that they have come here for the sole purpose of helping people.......str8ca$hhomie

Hey guys, sorry I've been away for a while.....dealing with future back surgery,,,been in the hospital for a few days, now im out on leave of absence,,,i see you guys are conversing over the post,,,all im going to say about it ,if it works, deal with it..I've spent some time on it trying to make it work for myself and u guys. As u guys know, I post lots of systems Some good and others are betters..Im only here to help . If it doesn't appeal to any of your likings, Please move on. These systems are just a tools. Nothing perfect about them..U don't have to play all the pairs that come with it..,because I wouldn't. But using other tools, such as, studying your own states p3/4 game, and usingkeys/ QPS, AND being an experience smart player etc..helps u narrow it down, That's the key..each state is different, and the results will be slightly different, but the outcome will be the same with using this system . I try my best, before posting, to make sure it works for all states..Again it aint perfect, so stop whinning..So as for as this system goes again, i can assure u that the pairs or full combo will show in the timely matter I have said they would..good luck to all.

Best of luck with your future back surgery!

My husband had it 15 years ago with great results and the best advice I can give you is Listen to your doctor Don't be in a hurry to return to work Walk as much as possible Throw honey do list to the side until you are fully recovered and don't let the boredom get to you! Just because they send you home in a couple of days does not mean you are good to go lol

Apparently everyone else is so busy going back and forth that they didn't even read what you are dealing with Thank you for taking the time to post a system for us to try and best of luck to you

PA mid draw front pairs did not show in 2015,201617x,21x,49x,552,935(3)

Of course a system is better at better at predicting numbers than randomly picking them. Random is quick picks, if it hits it's all luck. A system is working with a plan to pick your numbers.

You follow football? You a Packers fan? Here's two game situations.

1) The Packers have the ball with 10 seconds left in the game. It's 4th down, on the 40 yard line. They need a touchdown to win. They're in the huddle. Aaron Rogers calls a play that they always use in that situation. They get the touchdown and win the game. That is a system.

2) Same situation. They're in the huddle. Aaron Rogers says to his receivers. "You guys go wherever the hell you want and I'll chuck the ball." The play starts. He doesn't know where to throw the ball, because the receivers are running around all over the place. He has no idea where the receivers are going. He gets sacked and they lose the game. That is randomly picking numbers.

A system is only better at predicting numbers than randomly picking them if the results are better than what you would get with the random numbers. The system is not just automatically better because it is a system.

Love the Packers of course.

I don't know that the analogy is that great though. The relationship between the quarterback and the receivers is completely different than the relationship between the lottery and us players. The lottery is not making every effort to match up its numbers with our numbers, like a quarterback trying to make his pass match where the receivers run.

More like: Instead of a quarterback, the receivers have a ball throwing machine, which will throw the ball completely randomly. Different locations, speeds, trajectories, all over the field. Now, would it matter if the receiver runs a set route each time based on where the last ball ended up? Or just as good a chance running around all over the place like you state?

You would probably guess that I'd be the lazy receiver just standing sort of out in the middle waiting for the machine to send one my way, rather than moving all over the place for no apparent reason? Maybe that's what I would do idk. Maybe if I did I'd catch the same number of balls as any of the other receivers.